True And False, Words And Numbers

THE NATURE OF TRUE AND FALSE

Today, let's have a look at another way in which complexity affects us. Why is it that some things are true and some are false? The answer lies in what we could refer to as our "complexity perspective".

In any finite realm, there is not enough complexity available for everything to be true that could possibly be true. Therefore some "truth possibilities", as we will call them, must be false. Actually, the way we see it, there are many times the truth possibilities that are false than there is those that are actually true. A truth possibility is simply a statement that may or may not be true, such as "Points A, B and, C form a straight line".

This true and false perspective is entirely the result of complexity, or more accurately the complexity perspective of beings that are more complex than their sorrounding inanimate matter. We are more complex than our inanimate sorroundings. So, we see truth possibilities that are not true.

We see our less complex inanimate sorroundings through the lenses of our more complex brains. The sorroundings do not have enough complexity to match our complexity. The result is that we perceive some truth possibilities that turn out to be false.

We can thus define a "Truth Possibility Ratio". This ratio defines the truth possibilities we perceive that are not true, in relation to those that are true, and is equal to the ratio of our complexity to that of our inanimate sorroundings.

If we were less complex, we would see a higher proportion of truth possibilities that actually are true. If we were more complex, we would see a higher proportion of truth possibilities that are false. No falseness at all would be seen by beings that happened to be somehow less complex than their sorroundings.

This does not mean that a being of one level of complexity would see something as true, while a being of another level of complexity would see it as false. It means that the more complex being, if in the same sorrounding reality, would see more truth possibilities as false. Animals see a higher proportion of truth than we do.

If we could have a realm of infinite complexity, everything would be true and nothing would be false. If we lived in such an infinitely complex realm, we could be no more complex than our sorroundings, and so would see every truth possibility as true. In a "zero realm", meaning a realm that does not exist and is not even defined, nothing is true and any truth possibility must be false. In a finite realm, such as our universe, there is the possibility of perceiving both truth and falseness.

A characteristic of a complex realm is that statements tend to have some degree of self-fulfillment. In a realm such as our economy, if enough people keep warning that there will be a recession then that in itself tends to bring about the recession, making it self-fulfilling. This means that in an infinitely complex realm, not only would all truth possibilities have to be true but any statement would be true because it would be self-fulfilling.

This complexity perspective with regard to true and false is yet another example of how we see the universe not only because of what it is, but also because of what we are.

THE NATURE OF WORDS AND NUMBERS

Have you ever wondered why we need both words and numbers to describe the reality around us? The answer is related to that in true and false.

The difference between words and numbers is that all possible numbers exist, but not all possible words exist. There is no gap in the sequence of numbers, every number exists even if it is not manifested.

Most cosmologists believe that reality actually is mathematics being manifested. But yet the reality that we see, unlike the number system that we use to describe it, is not continuous. There are definite gaps in reality in that only a fraction of what could potentially exist or happen actually does.

This is where words come in. Words define and describe that which exists against the background of that which does not. Words operate in the same way as numbers in that they differentiate the one against the many (There is a posting by that name on this blog). But, unlike numbers, the reality described by words is discontinuous. All numbers exist, but not all possible words exist because not all possible things that words describe exist.

This relationship of words and numbers is rooted in our complexity perspective. Our brains are more complex than our sorrounding reality, and we see this reality through our complexity. There is not enough complexity in the sorrounding inanimate reality to match the complexity through which we view it, and the result is the apparent gaps in reality as we see it. Unlike numbers, which do not have to be actually manifested to exist, words are used only for that which does exist, or at least can be imagined to exist.

As in true and false, the proportion of things which we see that potentially could exist or happen, but do not, equals the proportion of our level of complexity to that of the sorrounding inanimate reality.

If we were of equal, or less, complexity than our sorrounding reality, we would not require words to describe it, but only numbers. Nothing that we could see would be false or non-existent so that it could all be described with continuous numbers.

Words are actually codes, which is why we have dictionaries for words but not for numbers. A word serves to differentiate something that exists from everything else, this fits with that all-pervasive pattern that I termed "The One And The Many", as described in the posting by that name.

Since we are more complex than our inanimate matter sorroundings, there is not enough complexity for everything that we could conceive of to actually exist. So, words also define for us that which does exist from that which doesn't. This is why we require words, as well as numbers, only a fraction of what could exist, from our complexity perspective, actually does exist.

Words, as codes, are far more complex than numbers. Although it may not seem like it, there is a vast amount of complexity packed into each and every word. All of the complexity of the pre-agreed upon meaning is contained in a word.

Numbers differ from words in that everything is basically numbers being manifested. They exist in the universe of inanimate space and matter, while words don't. Numbers are less complex than words, but are not required to differentiate that which exists from that which doesn't as words are. Since numbers act as an addressing system, a manifestation of The One And The Many pattern, any number must necessarily be as complex as the entire set of numbers since a number is defined by the numbers that it is not, the total complexity must include all numbers.

Theoretically, anything that can be described with words can also be described with numbers, and vice-versa. Words hold vastly more complexity than numbers, but the number of words is finite while the number of numbers is infinite. The two must ultimately be equal in complexity.

We must completely understand something in order to describe it with numbers, although that is not the case with less-precise words, which are views of reality from our perspective. (In "The Progression Of Knowledge", on the progress blog, I explained how this can give us an idea of where we stand as far as how the volume of knowledge that we have now compares with all that we can possibly know).

The calendar is an example of how something that was once science, the orbit of the earth around the sun, has been reduced to mathematics because it is more or less completely understood. The periodic table of the elements, which follows exactly the same pattern as the calendar, is a more recent example of something that was once science, meaning partially understood, is now the realm of mathematics. We can now describe the elements, as well as their isotopes and electron orbitals, with numbers alone, without really needing words.

Everything is really numbers being manifested, as in the periodic table of the elements or the calendar, but only down to a certain extent. We get down to a level where we cannot use numbers for description. In my original Theory of Primes, where I broke all patterns down into four basic primes, numbers are part of LEVEL, which is the second prime. The first prime is DOMAIN, which may not be able to be described with numbers.

Consider subatomic particles such as electrons, for example. We can describe the properties and orbitals of electrons with numbers, but we cannot describe what electrons are themselves with numbers. We will always arrive at a point where numbers can no longer be used, and we have to resort back to words.

We cannot determine the complexity of the words that we must fall back on because if we could, we could continue our description of reality with numbers and would not need the words. We know what words mean, or else they would not be useful, but we do not know how much actual complexity the word contains in it's meaning because if we did, we could express it's meaning with numbers and would no longer really need the word.

Our lack of complete understanding of reality is reflected in the fact that a number by itself is utterly meaningless. Suppose that you saw the number 36. What would it mean? It could mean 36 Elm Street, or 36 liters of water, or 36 kilometers.

From our perspective, a number is incomplete. It has no meaning until it is either manifested by something, such as 36 stars in a constellation, or paired with some unit or non-numerical definition. Numbers, and all mathematics, is a tool that requires words as a starting point. But this is another example of how we see the universe, and all of reality, not only because of what it is but also because of what we are. If we completely understood everything, we would be able to express it with numbers alone and the only non-numerical domain would be the entire cosmos.